Veganism

[Steve Wilson]

> An American study involving 15,000 individuals and reported at the
> American Heart Association conference in California, has concluded
> that if you eat a vegetarian diet you are 42% less likely to suffer a
> heart attack. For some strange reason, the researchers included fish
> as part of a "vegetarian" diet. Nevertheless, dark green leafy
> plants, fruit, beans and whole grains were the chief elements of such
> a diet.
>
> As an aside, a study by Bristol University found that vegetarians
> were more likely to suffer depression than non-veggies. As they
> linked that to vitamin or mineral deficiency, rather than any
> inherent fault in vegetarianism, it does make an important point.
> Going on a "fad" diet, whether vegetarian or not, is not a good idea.
> You need to be intelligent about becoming a vegetarian if you want to
> benefit from it. Eat a wide variety of fruit and vegetables, ensure
> adequate protein by eating nuts (cooked in roasts or stews, not
> salted) and beans (a pressure cooker is a good idea), learn about
> nutrition and practise what you learn.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>

Kendall, I notice that you espouse vegetarianism rather than veganism
and was wondering if you had any reasons against veganism, reasons which
might help me. I have a work colleague who is a vegan, and though I
have no interest in becoming a vegan, I have become interested in the
philosophical basis for it because it seems an extreme ethical position.
I've always considered broaching the subject with him at this deeper
level rather than main expression of avoiding animal products. I did
this today when I asked him why it's only us human animals that have
this moral concern when many animals eat meat. He was quite open to
talking about it. I think his answer in sum was that humans have
evolved to a degree where we have a moral awareness that it's wrong to
cause pain to other sentient life forms. I then asked him to whom do we
owe this moral obligation, and he replied 'to us humans'. To me that is
not a very satisfactory answer but we were interrupted at this point. I
think I have opportunity to continue this conversation in brief casual
chats as work allows. Have you ever given the ethical foundation of
veganism any thought?

Steve Wilson

[Kendall Down]

On 22/11/2017 17:32, Steve Wilson wrote:

> Kendall, I notice that you espouse vegetarianism rather than veganism
> and was wondering if you had any reasons against veganism, reasons which
> might help me.  I have a work colleague who is a vegan, and though I
> have no interest in becoming a vegan, I have become interested in the
> philosophical basis for it because it seems an extreme ethical position.

My reason for being a vegetarian is health - my health (a somewhat
selfish attitude, you may say!) In my opinion it is less easy to eat a
healthy vegan diet, though that may be changing as a) better vegetable
sources of needed nutrients become available, b) dangers in dairy and
eggs become greater - I remember the great salmonella scare of a few
years ago. Certainly my wife and I no longer use non-organic dairy or eggs.

> Have you ever given the ethical foundation of veganism any thought?

Yes, and I approve of them, but in the world as at present constituted,
I do not find them compelling. I am fairly sure that in heaven we will
all be vegans, but until then I am not convinced that it is necessary or
even desirable (see above).

When we lived in India, it was often difficult or impossible to optain
milk and eggs from healthy animals, we were vegan for long periods. I
think the longest such period was three years when we were in Patna. We
did not take any dietary supplements (apart from Marmite, shipped from
Australia) so it is by no means an impossible diet.

Some additional thoughts: I would find it hypocritical to adopt a vegan
diet on the grounds of animal welfare while wearing leather shoes
(though I have no problem with woollen garments, which do not involve
the death of the animal to produce). If one's concern is animal welfare,
I think one has to go the whole hog (so to speak) and avoid animal
products in diet and lifestyle.

(I am dubious about the claims that if only everyone were vegan world
hunger would disappear, because much (though by no means all) of the
land used for grazing is not suitable for other forms of agriculture.)

From your comments it would appear that your friend is not a Christian.
It is interesting that he thing it "wrong" to cause pain and suffering.
What is his definition of "wrong" and why should anyone accept his
prejudices as moralistic? Nature is full of pain and it is the way by
which evolution progresses, so his present elevated position would not
have been achieved without pain (nature red in tooth and claw).

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Kendall Down" wrote in message news:

> I am fairly sure that in heaven we will all be vegans,

LOL!
I doubt it very much, Ken, as the Angels or God do not need to eat, and as
God enjoys the sweet and meaty smell of the roast, meat eating would
certainly be allowed......{;o;}

Anyway St.Paul has told us that both food and stomachs will not finally
be needed and so will be bought to an end.

"13 Food [is intended] for the stomach and the stomach for food, but God
will finally end [the functions of] both and bring them to nothing"
1 Corinthians 6:13 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

Jeff...

[chorl...@gmail.com]

And if you understand the modern world, you finf out that things like rolled steel are often covered with inedible animal rendering to stop it from rusting.
Some vegans dont eat honey because it exploits bees... Two honest straightforward people who eventually quit being Christians over veganism

[Kendall Down]

On 23/11/2017 20:51, chorl...@hotmail.com wrote:

> And if you understand the modern world, you finf out that things like rolled steel are often covered with inedible animal rendering to stop it from rusting.

In this day and age I would be most surprised to find that that was so.

> Some vegans dont eat honey because it exploits bees... Two honest straightforward people who eventually quit being Christians over veganism

Yes, I have come across that sort of thing as well. That really is to
throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Bible was written for a
different culture and for different needs. It contains hints at a
vegetarian or even vegan diet, but it cannot be blamed because it does
not conform to whatever expectations we in the 21st century might have
about animal welfare and kindness to fluffy furry animals.

[Steve Wilson]

On 23/11/2017 14:51, Kendall Down wrote:
> On 22/11/2017 17:32, Steve Wilson wrote:
>
>> Kendall, I notice that you espouse vegetarianism rather than veganism
>> and was wondering if you had any reasons against veganism, reasons
>> which might help me.  I have a work colleague who is a vegan, and
>> though I have no interest in becoming a vegan, I have become
>> interested in the philosophical basis for it because it seems an
>> extreme ethical position.
>
> My reason for being a vegetarian is health - my health (a somewhat
> selfish attitude, you may say!) In my opinion it is less easy to eat a
> healthy vegan diet, though that may be changing as a) better vegetable
> sources of needed nutrients become available, b) dangers in dairy and
> eggs become greater - I remember the great salmonella scare of a few
> years ago. Certainly my wife and I no longer use non-organic dairy or eggs.
>

I have no problem with you being vegetarian for health reasons. I was
once a vegetarian, though mainly because it was held up as the
spiritually superior thing to do in Yoga circles.

>> Have you ever given the ethical foundation of veganism any thought?
>
> Yes, and I approve of them, but in the world as at present constituted,
> I do not find them compelling. I am fairly sure that in heaven we will
> all be vegans, but until then I am not convinced that it is necessary or
> even desirable (see above).
>
> When we lived in India, it was often difficult or impossible to optain
> milk and eggs from healthy animals, we were vegan for long periods. I
> think the longest such period was three years when we were in Patna. We
> did not take any dietary supplements (apart from Marmite, shipped from
> Australia) so it is by no means an impossible diet.
>
> Some additional thoughts: I would find it hypocritical to adopt a vegan
> diet on the grounds of animal welfare while wearing leather shoes
> (though I have no problem with woollen garments, which do not involve
> the death of the animal to produce). If one's concern is animal welfare,
> I think one has to go the whole hog (so to speak) and avoid animal
> products in diet and lifestyle.
>

I noticed today that his steel toe-capped safety boots have leather
uppers. However totally man-made safety boots have recently become
available at work, so maybe he's waiting for this present pair to wear
out. Like us all, he doesn't have the option of not wearing safety
shoes/boots. I don't know whether it would be helpful to point this out
just after I've broached the subject and risk him shutting the door.

> (I am dubious about the claims that if only everyone were vegan world
> hunger would disappear, because much (though by no means all) of the
> land used for grazing is not suitable for other forms of agriculture.)
>
> From your comments it would appear that your friend is not a Christian.
> It is interesting that he thing it "wrong" to cause pain and suffering.
> What is his definition of "wrong" and why should anyone accept his
> prejudices as moralistic? Nature is full of pain and it is the way by
> which evolution progresses, so his present elevated position would not
> have been achieved without pain (nature red in tooth and claw).
>

That's an interesting point. He is quite firm that it's wrong for us to
cause pain to animals and did briefly indicate we'd arrived at this
point by evolution, though I think I need to confirm this with him. What
you've said has been helpful, thank you.

Steve Wilson

[Kendall Down]

On 24/11/2017 05:22, Steve Wilson wrote:

> I noticed today that his steel toe-capped safety boots have leather
> uppers.  However totally man-made safety boots have recently become
> available at work, so maybe he's waiting for this present pair to wear
> out. Like us all, he doesn't have the option of not wearing safety
> shoes/boots. I don't know whether it would be helpful to point this out
> just after I've broached the subject and risk him shutting the door.

I suspect it would just "shut the door" without accomplishing anything
useful. I wouldn't kill a cow just to put shoes on my feet, but if cows
are being killed and the leather is available, it is the best material
for shoes - I've tried the alternatives and they're rubbish.

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-11-23, Kendall Down wrote:

> (I am dubious about the claims that if only everyone were vegan world
> hunger would disappear, because much (though by no means all) of the
> land used for grazing is not suitable for other forms of agriculture.)

These things can be quite complicated. I'm not sure if this is still
the case, but a few years ago the demand for quinoa in the developed
world was causing dietary & environmental problems in Peru:

Quinoa was, in marketing speak, the "miracle grain of the Andes", a
healthy, right-on, ethical addition to the meat avoider's larder....

But there is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a
bag of quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours
for this grain has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer
people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing
staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is
cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the
cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn
land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa
monoculture.

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa>


--
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
whose? --- Don Marquis

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-11-23, Kendall Down wrote:

> Yes, I have come across that sort of thing as well. That really is to
> throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Bible was written for a
> different culture and for different needs.

!!!!!


--
There's nothing in Scripture that forbids letting our lawn
go wild. --- Garrison Keillor

[Kendall Down]

On 24/11/2017 11:11, Madhu wrote:

> That is usually not enough. You also have to be have been vegetarian in
> your previous birth. Especially if you were trying to achieve
> levitation. I can't locate it now, but I think P.G. Wodehouse explained
> this in one of his books.

I think I've read all except, perhaps, one or two of Wodehouse's
earliest books and don't recall any such discussion.

Apropo of nothing, what is the Hindi word for "tigress", please? Google
translate gives "sherani", which I am pretty sure is "lioness" as "sher"
is lion, whereas "bagh" is tiger.

Thanks.

[Kendall Down]

On 24/11/2017 10:32, Adam Funk wrote:

>> Yes, I have come across that sort of thing as well. That really is to
>> throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Bible was written for a
>> different culture and for different needs.

> !!!!!

You didn't realise that? Perhaps it may surprise you to learn that the
earliest book of the Bible was written 3,500 years ago and the latest
around 2,000 years ago?

That doesn't mean that the Bible does not contain everlasting truth, but
the eternal principles have to be discerned from the particular rules
and beliefs that were of more relevance to people back then than they
are today. For example, just at a rough guess, what percentage of
Sainsbury's beef, would you say, was offered to Apollo before being put
on the shelves?

[Kendall Down]

On 24/11/2017 10:32, Adam Funk wrote:

> These things can be quite complicated. I'm not sure if this is still
> the case, but a few years ago the demand for quinoa in the developed
> world was causing dietary & environmental problems in Peru:

We have a bag of the stuff somewhere. It's not our favourite food, so
whether we'll ever get round to finishing the bag I don't know. We tried
it out of curiosity.

Fortunately it is not essential for a healthy diet.

[Michael J Davis]

Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> opined

Err... Slight typo above.. I think you mean...

>That doesn't mean that the Bible does not contain everlasting truth,
>but the eternal principles have to be discerned from the particular
>rules and beliefs that were of more relevance to people back then than
>they are today. For example, just at a rough guess, what percentage of

>Sainsbury's beef, would you say, was offered to Tesco before being put
>on the shelves?

However, if that's your point, what's your objection to evolution?

Mike
--
Michael J Davis

http://www.trustsof.co.uk
<><

photos at www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

[Timreason]

On 24/11/2017 10:32, Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2017-11-23, Kendall Down wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have come across that sort of thing as well. That really is to
>> throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Bible was written for a
>> different culture and for different needs.
>
> !!!!!
>

Sounds like something I might have said... ;)

Tim.

[Kendall Down]

On 24/11/2017 14:11, Michael J Davis wrote:

>> That doesn't mean that the Bible does not contain everlasting truth,
>> but the eternal principles have to be discerned from the particular
>> rules and beliefs that were of more relevance to people back then than
>> they are today. For example, just at a rough guess, what percentage of
>> Sainsbury's beef, would you say, was offered to Apollo before being
>> put on the shelves?

> Err... Slight typo above.. I think you mean...

> >That doesn't mean that the Bible does not contain everlasting truth,
> >but the eternal principles have to be discerned from the particular
> >rules and beliefs that were of more relevance to people back then than
> >they are today. For example, just at a rough guess, what percentage of
> >Sainsbury's beef, would you say, was offered to Tesco before being put
> >on the shelves?

No, I meant "Apollo". You see, the big question in St Paul's day was
food sacrificed to idols. It may be a problem in India, but here in
Britain it is pretty much of a non-question. It just doesn't happen.

However we can, perhaps, draw a principle from that and, for example, I
would never go into a New Age or Pagan shop to buy a birthday card
which, while it may not have been offered to idols, is certainly
associated with them and the purchase would be supporting them.

> However, if that's your point, what's your objection to evolution?

I don't have enough faith.

[Steve Wilson]

On 24/11/2017 11:11, Madhu wrote:
>
>

> * Steve Wilson <ov8ab3$hff$1...@gioia.aioe.org> :
> Wrote on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 05:22:39 +0000:

>
>> I have no problem with you being vegetarian for health reasons. I was
>> once a vegetarian, though mainly because it was held up as the
>> spiritually superior thing to do in Yoga circles.
>

> That is usually not enough. You also have to be have been vegetarian in
> your previous birth. Especially if you were trying to achieve
> levitation. I can't locate it now, but I think P.G. Wodehouse explained
> this in one of his books.
>

> On a more serious note, did these yoga circles talk about the so called
> "ascended masters"?
>
>

Thankfully I never experienced one myself, but yes they were spoken of
and written about, and with reverence, for they were deemed to have
attained the ultimate goal to which we were aspiring. What's more I
think they are a reality, though I do not believe they are who they
claim to be. I later read about David Icke and his experiences, and
there seemed to be some eerie similarities. Thankfully I met with
someone in the depth of depression when laying on my bed and I knew who
it was without having to ask. It was strange that I came to an
awareness of being rescued from a real spiritual danger of which I was
totally unaware of prior to that brief encounter.

I've since read that Eastern religion can result in mental
disintegration for some people due to the doctrine that our personal
identity is an illusion. At one time I did wonder if this was what was
happening to me. Whatever it was it's all history now, and I know that
I'm not God.


Steve Wilson

[Michael J Davis]

Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> opined

>On 24/11/2017 14:11, Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>>> That doesn't mean that the Bible does not contain everlasting truth,
>>>but the eternal principles have to be discerned from the particular
>>>rules and beliefs that were of more relevance to people back then
>>>than they are today. For example, just at a rough guess, what
>>>percentage of Sainsbury's beef, would you say, was offered to Apollo
>>>before being put on the shelves?
>
>> Err... Slight typo above.. I think you mean...
>
>> >That doesn't mean that the Bible does not contain everlasting
>> >truth, but the eternal principles have to be discerned from the
>> >particular rules and beliefs that were of more relevance to people
>> >back then than they are today. For example, just at a rough guess,
>> >what percentage of Sainsbury's beef, would you say, was offered to
>> >Tesco before being put on the shelves?
>
>No, I meant "Apollo". You see, the big question in St Paul's day was
>food sacrificed to idols. It may be a problem in India, but here in
>Britain it is pretty much of a non-question. It just doesn't happen.

;-)
Yes, but Paul's response was, in effect, 'don't worry about it unless it
offends someone else..!"

>However we can, perhaps, draw a principle from that and, for example, I
>would never go into a New Age or Pagan shop to buy a birthday card
>which, while it may not have been offered to idols, is certainly
>associated with them and the purchase would be supporting them.

Nor would I, but that's a matter of who benefits from my money.

>> However, if that's your point, what's your objection to evolution?
>
>I don't have enough faith.

;-)
It's more that if you only believe the universe is thousands of years
old, how can you explain anything about astronomy and all that stuff?
You are too much of a sceptic to be a Christian, methinks.

Re:- Evolution, I've yet to find anything in the Bible that makes me
doubt that the Glory of god in His creation is diminished by the theory
of evolution as we are beginning to understand it today (which includes
genetic codes and all that wondrous clever and curious stuff that is
revealed as we look further.)

After all The Bible was written for a different culture and for
different needs.

Just teasing... it won't affect your or my eternal destiny, unless you
lie about it!

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><

"In science we have been reading only the notes to a poem;
In Christianity we have the poem itself." C.S.Lewis
<><

[Madhu]

* Kendall Down <ov97kf$kdt$2...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 13:42:43 +0000:

>> That is usually not enough. You also have to be have been vegetarian
>> in your previous birth. Especially if you were trying to achieve
>> levitation. I can't locate it now, but I think P.G. Wodehouse
>> explained this in one of his books.
>
> I think I've read all except, perhaps, one or two of Wodehouse's
> earliest books and don't recall any such discussion.

If I remember it was only a few sentences, most likely some drones
member (or similar) commenting on a friend who was a vegetarian.
Wodehouse frequently takes digs at vegetarianism in many of his books
(I've only read a dozen or so, and not in recent years anyway.. I
couldn't locate this particular passage in the tattered remains of the
few books I still have)

> Apropo of nothing, what is the Hindi word for "tigress", please?
> Google translate gives "sherani", which I am pretty sure is "lioness"
> as "sher" is lion, whereas "bagh" is tiger.

The sanskrit word for tiger is vyaaghraH, and the feminine is vyaaghrii.
So I'd guess the feminine of baagh is baaghii. (I think both words are
in Hindi too)

[Kendall Down]

On 27/11/2017 02:06, Madhu wrote:

> If I remember it was only a few sentences, most likely some drones
> member (or similar) commenting on a friend who was a vegetarian.
> Wodehouse frequently takes digs at vegetarianism in many of his books

Well, I don't recall it, but you may be right.

> (I've only read a dozen or so, and not in recent years anyway.. I
> couldn't locate this particular passage in the tattered remains of the
> few books I still have)

You need to keep the white ants away from your book cases.

> The sanskrit word for tiger is vyaaghraH, and the feminine is vyaaghrii.
> So I'd guess the feminine of baagh is baaghii. (I think both words are
> in Hindi too)

Thanks. You don't speak Hindi? Which part of India are you from?

[Madhu]

OT
* Steve Wilson <ova3ck$dc6$1...@gioia.aioe.org> :
Wrote on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:36:18 +0000:

> Thankfully I never experienced one myself, but yes they were spoken of
> and written about, and with reverence, for they were deemed to have
> attained the ultimate goal to which we were aspiring. What's more I
> think they are a reality, though I do not believe they are who they
> claim to be. I later read about David Icke and his experiences, and
> there seemed to be some eerie similarities. Thankfully I met with
> someone in the depth of depression when laying on my bed and I knew
> who it was without having to ask. It was strange that I came to an
> awareness of being rescued from a real spiritual danger of which I was
> totally unaware of prior to that brief encounter.

I haven't had any first hand experiences myself. I assume you are
talking of encountering Jesus here. I've heard and read about similar
accounts, often where the person had been involved with the occult or
eastern spirituality.

[I'm afraid the only story I have of "encountering Jesus" in a dream a
few years ago is rather embarrassing. The person had a form resembling
www.ayahasherayah.org/images/cover.jpg, and I was trying to recollect
where I had seen this androgynous image.. and remembered it. But this
response was not pleasing to the person, who left with some impatience
and disappointment.
Now I strongly believe that demons that beset cause many dream visions;
that they use the human mind as a canvas to project images and to gauge
the reactions of the victim, perhaps to discern where the victim stands
on some issue]

> I've since read that Eastern religion can result in mental
> disintegration for some people due to the doctrine that our personal
> identity is an illusion. At one time I did wonder if this was what was
> happening to me. Whatever it was it's all history now, and I know
> that I'm not God.

The clearest proof of the antecedents of these "masters" comes
from their efforts to undermine belief in God and replace God with
something (anything) else.

Apart from working on individual these spirits also work through
corporates. They may be deemed benign, may have important powerful
roles in administration (say working with civil service employees), they
may oversee influential institutions (even in the west, managing vast
finances), but their anti-God agenda is the clue to discerning them and
the organizations they preside over.

While there is the danger of dissociation of personality, I think the
bigger danger is the actual conviction that "I am God" (witness meher
baba at his death). This delusion is often sustained (temporarily) the
siddhis or supernatural powers given to the victim by the devil through
his intermediaries, and through the "miracles" he is able to work,
especially when the victim has been placed in top management positions.
Again I think the anti-god agenda helps distinguish these cases.
Institutions where leadership-succession is established seem to be
especially seem to be the domain of these spirits

[Steve Wilson]

On 27/11/2017 10:44, Madhu wrote:
> OT
> * Steve Wilson <ova3ck$dc6$1...@gioia.aioe.org> :
> Wrote on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:36:18 +0000:
>
>> Thankfully I never experienced one myself, but yes they were spoken of
>> and written about, and with reverence, for they were deemed to have
>> attained the ultimate goal to which we were aspiring. What's more I
>> think they are a reality, though I do not believe they are who they
>> claim to be. I later read about David Icke and his experiences, and
>> there seemed to be some eerie similarities. Thankfully I met with
>> someone in the depth of depression when laying on my bed and I knew
>> who it was without having to ask. It was strange that I came to an
>> awareness of being rescued from a real spiritual danger of which I was
>> totally unaware of prior to that brief encounter.
>
> I haven't had any first hand experiences myself. I assume you are
> talking of encountering Jesus here. I've heard and read about similar
> accounts, often where the person had been involved with the occult or
> eastern spirituality.
>

I thought that it was obvious I was speaking of Jesus. I still find it
odd that I did not have to ask who he was, I just knew.

And although I would agree that such encounters with Jesus may occur
with those involved in the occult, I don't think it's restricted to
them. My observation is that it seems to happen to those who have become
isolated either physically or emotionally, and in one way or another,
have hit rock bottom. I've also read several accounts of Muslim converts
who have similarly had a direct experience. Personally I think it is
just one of many ways in which the Spirit works with individual souls.
The person who has a direct experience is in no way superior for it. I
know I'm not superior, far from it, in many many ways I feel I'm streets
behind a person who has simple faith.

> [I'm afraid the only story I have of "encountering Jesus" in a dream a
> few years ago is rather embarrassing. The person had a form resembling
> www.ayahasherayah.org/images/cover.jpg, and I was trying to recollect
> where I had seen this androgynous image.. and remembered it. But this
> response was not pleasing to the person, who left with some impatience
> and disappointment.
> Now I strongly believe that demons that beset cause many dream visions;
> that they use the human mind as a canvas to project images and to gauge
> the reactions of the victim, perhaps to discern where the victim stands
> on some issue]
>

I wouldn't disagree, I do think the human mind is the interface,
especially if it's been prepared by occult practices. I friend of mine
who grew up under her mother's continual involvement in seances and the
occult, was plagued by human-like apparitions in the run up to
committing her life to Jesus. I just cannot imagine the horror of that.
It seems if you've been opened to the spirit world all manner of weird
things can occur.

>> I've since read that Eastern religion can result in mental
>> disintegration for some people due to the doctrine that our personal
>> identity is an illusion. At one time I did wonder if this was what was
>> happening to me. Whatever it was it's all history now, and I know
>> that I'm not God.
>
> The clearest proof of the antecedents of these "masters" comes
> from their efforts to undermine belief in God and replace God with
> something (anything) else.
>
> Apart from working on individual these spirits also work through
> corporates. They may be deemed benign, may have important powerful
> roles in administration (say working with civil service employees), they
> may oversee influential institutions (even in the west, managing vast
> finances), but their anti-God agenda is the clue to discerning them and
> the organizations they preside over.
>
> While there is the danger of dissociation of personality, I think the
> bigger danger is the actual conviction that "I am God" (witness meher
> baba at his death). This delusion is often sustained (temporarily) the
> siddhis or supernatural powers given to the victim by the devil through
> his intermediaries, and through the "miracles" he is able to work,
> especially when the victim has been placed in top management positions.
> Again I think the anti-god agenda helps distinguish these cases.
> Institutions where leadership-succession is established seem to be
> especially seem to be the domain of these spirits
>

I think this is what is behind the Eastern religious practices aimed at
shutting the rational mind down, hence my suspicion of Archimandrite
Meletios in the recent thread 'When to be right?'. Once the rational
mind is neutralised, you then become unquestioningly accepting of the
lie that you are divine.

I do see another danger for Christians in this, that of becoming
obsessed with the existence of such spirits and seeing them everywhere.
I think some Pentecostal denominations are guilty of this. Though I am
aware of the reality of such demonic entities, I concentrate on the more
important aspects of Christianity like my relationship with Jesus, his
will for me and how to live in a world which I find so distressing.


Steve Wilson

[Kendall Down]

On 27/11/2017 10:44, Madhu wrote:

> [I'm afraid the only story I have of "encountering Jesus" in a dream a
> few years ago is rather embarrassing. The person had a form resembling
> www.ayahasherayah.org/images/cover.jpg, and I was trying to recollect
> where I had seen this androgynous image.. and remembered it. But this
> response was not pleasing to the person, who left with some impatience
> and disappointment.

I'm not surprised that Jesus left in a dudgeon! (If it was Jesus.)

> While there is the danger of dissociation of personality, I think the
> bigger danger is the actual conviction that "I am God"

I read a book some years ago about a Hindu who became a Christian. In it
he reported seeing his father sitting crosslegged before a photo of
himself; he was worshipping the "god within". That seems uncomfortably
close to saying "I am god".

[Kendall Down]

On 27/11/2017 12:51, Steve Wilson wrote:

> And although I would agree that such encounters with Jesus may occur
> with those involved in the occult, I don't think it's restricted to
> them. My observation is that it seems to happen to those who have become
> isolated either physically or emotionally, and in one way or another,
> have hit rock bottom. I've also read several accounts of Muslim converts
> who have similarly had a direct experience.

Fred Lemon, converted criminal, was one who claimed to have met Jesus,
Who appeared to him in his cell. Given the way his life was transformed,
I'm inclined to believe - though I am dubious whether Jesus actually
stood in his prison cell or he just received a waking vision of Christ.

> I wouldn't disagree, I do think the human mind is the interface,
> especially if it's been prepared by occult practices.  I friend of mine
> who grew up under her mother's continual involvement in seances and the
> occult, was plagued by human-like apparitions in the run up to
> committing her life to Jesus. I just cannot imagine the horror of that.
> It seems if you've been opened to the spirit world all manner of weird
> things can occur.

Indeed - and as Britain becomes a post-Christian nation, the devil is
gaining power to lead men astray.

> I think this is what is behind the Eastern religious practices aimed at
> shutting the rational mind down, hence my suspicion of Archimandrite
> Meletios in the recent thread 'When to be right?'.  Once the rational
> mind is neutralised, you then become unquestioningly accepting of the
> lie that you are divine.

That is why God says, "Come now and let us *reason* together", not "let
us emote together" (what an awful word!)

> I do see another danger for Christians in this, that of becoming
> obsessed with the existence of such spirits and seeing them everywhere.
> I think some Pentecostal denominations are guilty of this.

I agree.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Some years ago, a Royal Windsor king advocated his throne to be with the
women he loved more then God, for as she was a divorced woman, the church
[quite rightly] would not sanction their adulterous marriage.

A modern day Royal now announces his engagement and intension marry a
woman divorcee, and the church no longer bats an eyelid.

In fact Justin Welby offers hypocritical congrates thus given his
churches blessing on such a terrible error of judgment on his part.

"Justin Welby took to Twitter to congratulate the happy couple."
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5120877/Theresa-congratulates-Prince-Harry-engagement.html#ixzz4zlIfmR3f

In fact it gets worse:
"Divorcee Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will marry in church after the
Archbishop of Canterbury gave them his blessing.

The Most Reverend Justin Welby said yesterday that he was ‘so happy’ they
had ‘chosen to make their vows before God’.

She has already broken her other marriage vows before God, how can people
be so spiritually blind?

It gets worse:
"He had already made clear he had no objections to Miss Markle, who divorced
film producer Trevor Engelson in 2013, marrying Harry in a church, and
indicated he would be willing to conduct the service if asked. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5123127/Harry-divorcee-Meghan-wed-chuch.html#ixzz4zlKUXAR3So

So much for Welby's deep respect for the Lord Christ's words,
forbiddingsuch
evil alliances."9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not
separate."10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus
about this.11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another
woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and
marries another man, she commits adultery."Mark 10:9-12 (ANIV

)And then he has
the audacity to proclaim
:"Marriage is a special and joyous commitment, one
that Jesus celebrated together with friends at the wedding in Cana.'I am so
happy that Prince Harry and Ms Markle have chosen to make theirvows before
God."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5120877/Theresa-congratulates-Prince-Harry-engagement.html#ixzz4zlO8KCibChrist's

Christ's words does not change even if men who lack understanding in the
churches,
and defy God's Will and are determined to allow what He has forbidden.

So the
'devil' must be so very pleased with the work of it's faithful minions who
are consistently allowing such evils that both Christ and his faithful
Apostles forbade and so utterly condemned

.One person commented:
"Prince
Charles wasn't allowed to marry Camilla in church - but Harry can. A it
hypocritical ? No wonder less people are going to church."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5123127/Harry-divorcee-Meghan-wed-chuch.html#ixzz4zlR37zqPNeither

Was Princess Margaret allowed to marry another divorced person,Group Captain
Townsend.?
The churche's blatant hypocrisy on this issue is really quite
stifling

.Jeff..."By their fruits shall ye know them"

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Some years ago, a Royal Windsor king advocated his throne to be with the
women he loved more then God, for as she was a divorced woman, the church
[quite rightly] would not sanction their adulterous marriage.

A modern day Royal now announces his engagement and intension marry a
woman divorcee, and the church no longer bats an eyelid.

In fact Justin Welby offers hypocritical congrates thus given his
churches blessing on such a terrible error of judgment on his part.

"Justin Welby took to Twitter to congratulate the happy couple."
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5120877/Theresa-congratulates-Prince-Harry-engagement.html#ixzz4zlIfmR3f

In fact it gets worse:
"Divorcee Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will marry in church after the
Archbishop of Canterbury gave them his blessing.

The Most Reverend Justin Welby said yesterday that he was ‘so happy’ they
had ‘chosen to make their vows before God’.

She has already broken her other marriage vows before God, how can people
be so spiritually blind?

It gets worse:
"He had already made clear he had no objections to Miss Markle, who divorced
film producer Trevor Engelson in 2013, marrying Harry in a church, and
indicated he would be willing to conduct the service if asked. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5123127/Harry-divorcee-Meghan-wed-chuch.html#ixzz4zlKUXAR3So

much for Welby's deep respect for the Lord Christ's words, forbiddingsuch
evil alliances."9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not
separate."10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus
about this.11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another

womancommits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and
marriesanother man, she commits adultery."Mark 10:9-12 (ANIV)And then he has

the audacity to proclaim:"Marriage is a special and joyous commitment, one

that Jesus celebratedtogether with friends at the wedding in Cana.'I am so

happy that Prince Harry and Ms Markle have chosen to make theirvows before
God."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5120877/Theresa-congratulates-Prince-Harry-engagement.html#ixzz4zlO8KCibChrist's

words does not change even if men who lack understanding in thechurches,

and defy God's Will and are determined to allow what He hasforbidden.So the
'devil' must be so very pleased with the work of it's faithfulminions who

are consistently allowing such evils that both Christ and hisfaithful

Apostles forbade and so utterly condemned.One person commented:"Prince
Charles wasn't allowed to marry Camilla in church - but Harry can. Abit

hypocritical ? No wonder less people are going to church."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5123127/Harry-divorcee-Meghan-wed-chuch.html#ixzz4zlR37zqPNeither

was Princess Margaret allowed to marry another divorced person,Group Captain
Townsend.The churche's blatant hypocrisy on this issue is really quite
stifling.Jeff..."By their fruits shall ye know them"

[celia]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:13:17 PM UTC, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:

> The churche's blatant hypocrisy on this issue is really quite
> stifling
>
> .Jeff..."By their fruits shall ye know them"

Have you got a vegan suggestion for Christmas dinner?

Celia

[Timreason]

Jeff doesn't celebrate Christmas!

Tim.

[celia]

I know, but thread drift had got rather extreme.
And I could do for a vegetarian suggestion for Christmas if not a vegan one.

Celia

[Kendall Down]

On 29/11/2017 11:16, celia wrote:

> Have you got a vegan suggestion for Christmas dinner?

The BBC website currently has some suggestions for a vegan Christmas.

[Kendall Down]

On 29/11/2017 19:16, celia wrote:

> And I could do for a vegetarian suggestion for Christmas if not a vegan one.

For the last umpteen years Shirley has made a chestnut pate en croute
for our Christmas dinner. Delicious. Anyone want the recipe?

Chestnut pate en Croute
-----------------------
14 oz Chestnut puree
1 medium onion chopped fine
1 clove garlic chopped fine
1/2 oz oil for frying 1tblsp milk
8oz mushrooms chopped
1 Stick of celery
1 egg
12 oz shortcrust pastry
1 dstspn lemon juice
Basil
Salt

Fry onion, garlic, celery and mushrooms then add other ingredients. If
mixture is too runny add a little flour. Line 2lb loaf tin with pastry,
pour in mixture, cover with remaining pastry, brush with milk. Make a
hole to release steam. Bake at 375F for ten minutes then for 40 minutes
at 350F. Serve hot or cold.

Sainsburys used to sell chestnut pate in tins but recently they have
started selling plastic pouches. You may need two or more to get your 14
ounces.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Timreason" wrote in message news:

Mark stated last year to the group:
>"If you do not celebrate Christmas yourself, and cannot bring yourself to
> wish those who do a joyful celebration of it, then simply refrain from
> commenting on it completely.

Agreed forthwith!

Jeff...

[celia]

That looks good, thanks.

Celia

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-11-25, Michael J Davis wrote:

> It's more that if you only believe the universe is thousands of years
> old, how can you explain anything about astronomy and all that stuff?
> You are too much of a sceptic to be a Christian, methinks.
>
> Re:- Evolution, I've yet to find anything in the Bible that makes me
> doubt that the Glory of god in His creation is diminished by the theory
> of evolution as we are beginning to understand it today (which includes
> genetic codes and all that wondrous clever and curious stuff that is
> revealed as we look further.)
>
> After all The Bible was written for a different culture and for
> different needs.

Yes!

> Just teasing... it won't affect your or my eternal destiny, unless you
> lie about it!

Yes, but good science is useful for a lot of things like medical
treatment that we as Christians probably agree should be encouraged.


--
The field of the poor may yield much food,
but it is swept away through injustice.
--- Proverbs 13:23

[Adam Funk]

Sure. I'll go out on a limb here & express my opinion, which is that
there is a lot of "noise" on top of the divinely inspired material in
what we have as the Bible, resulting from human errors, prejudices, &
ignorance. I wonder if it's deliberate to encourage us to use our
brains.


--
A heretic is someone who shares ALMOST all your beliefs.
Kill him. --- Ivan Stang

[Adam Funk]

Sounds good to me, but nobody else in the house likes nuts!



--
'...and Tom [Snyder] turns to him and says, "so Alice [Cooper], is it
true you kill chickens on stage?" That was the opening question, and
Alice looks at him real serious and goes, "Oh no, no no. That's
Colonel Sanders. Colonel Sanders kills chickens."'

[Timreason]

On 01/12/2017 14:01, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2017-11-24, Timreason wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2017 10:32, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-23, Kendall Down wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I have come across that sort of thing as well. That really is to
>>>> throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Bible was written for a
>>>> different culture and for different needs.
>>>
>>> !!!!!
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like something I might have said... ;)
>
> Sure. I'll go out on a limb here & express my opinion, which is that
> there is a lot of "noise" on top of the divinely inspired material in
> what we have as the Bible, resulting from human errors, prejudices, &
> ignorance. I wonder if it's deliberate to encourage us to use our
> brains.
>

Well, I've often said that the Bible is to make us think, rather than to
supply all the answers.

Tim.

[Michael J Davis]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> opined

>On 2017-11-25, Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>> It's more that if you only believe the universe is thousands of years
>> old, how can you explain anything about astronomy and all that stuff?
>> You are too much of a sceptic to be a Christian, methinks.
>>
>> Re:- Evolution, I've yet to find anything in the Bible that makes me
>> doubt that the Glory of god in His creation is diminished by the theory
>> of evolution as we are beginning to understand it today (which includes
>> genetic codes and all that wondrous clever and curious stuff that is
>> revealed as we look further.)
>>
>> After all The Bible was written for a different culture and for
>> different needs.
>
>Yes!
>
>> Just teasing... it won't affect your or my eternal destiny, unless you
>> lie about it!
>
>Yes, but good science is useful for a lot of things like medical
>treatment that we as Christians probably agree should be encouraged.

But of course creationists don't believe in antibiotic resistant
bacteria as they obviously can't mutate.

Mike
--
Michael J Davis

[Steve Wilson]

I'm not a young earth creationist but it doesn't take much to see that
your comment is nonsense. Young earthers happily accept that bacteria
mutate, what they don't accept is that this proves the truth of
Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution stands macro-evolution, that
organisms have mutated into other distinct life forms through the
creation of new genetic information. To my knowledge there is no
mechanism by which information is created other than by intelligence.

Steve Wilson

[Steve Wilson]

On 01/12/2017 14:01, Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2017-11-24, Timreason wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2017 10:32, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-23, Kendall Down wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I have come across that sort of thing as well. That really is to
>>>> throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Bible was written for a
>>>> different culture and for different needs.
>>>
>>> !!!!!
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like something I might have said... ;)
>
> Sure. I'll go out on a limb here & express my opinion, which is that
> there is a lot of "noise" on top of the divinely inspired material in
> what we have as the Bible, resulting from human errors, prejudices, &
> ignorance. I wonder if it's deliberate to encourage us to use our
> brains.
>
>

You are not really saying much here as it's standard practice in
biblical exegesis to take things like literary genre and cultural
differences into account. And of course to do this we have to use our
rational faculties, hopefully a sanctified mind, to get to the heart of
what God is saying. However where it can go wrong is when the people
are not happy with letting the text say what it says, but want it to
conform to present-day values. We had a prime example of this with the
homosexual issue.


Steve Wilson

[Adam Funk]

To be fair, there are creationists who don't deny that evolution
happens now.


--
Well, I just said that Jesus and I were both Jewish and that neither
of us ever had a job, we never had a home, we never married and we
traveled around the countryside irritating people.
--- Kinky Friedman

[Michael J Davis]

Steve Wilson <stevewi...@hotmail.com> opined

Understood - I ran out of smilies, sorry! ;-(

[Kendall Down]

On 01/12/2017 14:02, Adam Funk wrote:

> Sounds good to me, but nobody else in the house likes nuts!

Chestnuts, despite the name, aren't particularly nutty. All you can do
is try it.

[Kendall Down]

On 01/12/2017 13:59, Adam Funk wrote:

> Yes, but good science is useful for a lot of things like medical
> treatment that we as Christians probably agree should be encouraged.

Good science involves repeatable experiments.

[Kendall Down]

On 01/12/2017 18:23, Michael J Davis wrote:

> But of course creationists don't believe in antibiotic resistant
> bacteria as they obviously can't mutate.

Now you're being silly. In fact, resistant bacteria pretty well prove
Creationism; drug-resistant MRSA is still MRSA, drug-resistant TB is
still TB, and so on.

There was some hoo-ha last week or the week before about how a new
species of Darwin's Finches had emerged in the Galapagos and, contra
Dawkins, had done so in a couple of years instead of the millions of
billions Dawkins says are essential.

However when you read the small print, it emerged that the birds were
still finches, it was just that they came from a different island and
sang a different song, so didn't interbreed with other finches. In my
youth I had the same problem with a beautiful Italian girl I met in
Bari; she didn't speak English, I didn't speak Italian, romance died.
Proof positive that English and Italians are a different species.

Remember, folk: you read it here first.

[Kendall Down]

On 01/12/2017 19:56, Adam Funk wrote:

> To be fair, there are creationists who don't deny that evolution
> happens now.

So far as I know, NO creationist will deny micro-evolution. It is claims
of macro-evolution which we doubt.

[Kendall Down]

On 01/12/2017 14:01, Adam Funk wrote:

> Sure. I'll go out on a limb here & express my opinion, which is that
> there is a lot of "noise" on top of the divinely inspired material in
> what we have as the Bible, resulting from human errors, prejudices, &
> ignorance. I wonder if it's deliberate to encourage us to use our
> brains.

It depends what you mean by "noise". If - as I think you mean by
mentioning "human errors" - you mean that the Bible contains doctrines
and laws which are false or bad, I do not agree. If you merely mean that
God did not dictate every word in the Bible, that is self-evidently true.

Recognising that the Bible was written for a different culture is not to
disparage the Bible but to aid its interpretation.

One of the reasons why I reject the idea that the Israelites are
represented by the Iron-I culture of Palestine is the fact that the
books of Moses are so clearly Bronze Age. Iron chariots were remarkable
and fearsome, the incoming Philistines had a monopoly on iron working,
and it was proof of murder if an iron axe was used to kill someone! An
axe of some other metal might be an accident, but only weapons used rare
and expensive iron.

Today, with iron so common, I don't think that use of an iron tool is
proof of murder, but the principle of rareity is still valid. For
example, if Polonium is used to kill someone, I would not accept that as
an accident!

[Kendall Down]

On 01/12/2017 19:33, Steve Wilson wrote:

> I'm not a young earth creationist but it doesn't take much to see that
> your comment is nonsense.

Those on the losing side are proverbially partial to straws at which to
clutch.

[Kendall Down]

On 01/12/2017 19:46, Steve Wilson wrote:

> We had a prime example of this with the homosexual issue.

What do you mean, "had"?

[Michael J Davis]

Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> opined

>On 01/12/2017 13:59, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> Yes, but good science is useful for a lot of things like medical
>> treatment that we as Christians probably agree should be encouraged.
>
>Good science involves repeatable experiments.

So astronomy is not science?

[Kendall Down]

On 04/12/2017 21:08, Michael J Davis wrote:

>> Good science involves repeatable experiments.

> So astronomy is not science?

Some parts of the subject are; anyone can look through a telescope and
see the moon or measure its orbit. Other parts are nothing but
speculation, some of which is testable and other parts are not.

It is concerning that you don't seem to realise the difference.

[Michael J Davis]

Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> opined

You needn't be concerned. Science is roughly about:-
a) making (careful/measured) observations
b) speculating upon the reasons/causes of those observations
c) Formulating a rationale for those reasons/causes in the form of
hypotheses
d) predicting the further outcomes of those hypotheses beyond existing
observations, and attempting to falsify the hypothesis.
e) Setting up, where possible, conditions to test the limits of those
hypotheses, and observing the results.
e) Testing those results against the hypotheses, and so on, until
f) Sufficient knowledge of the limits of those hypotheses can be
summarised as a 'Law'

Then repeating the whole process until further
refinement/accuracy/precision can be obtained.

As Karl Popper said in order to be science any theory must be capable of
being falsified. His philosophy of science said "we should aim to
eliminate the false rather than establish the true".

[Kendall Down]

On 05/12/2017 15:49, Michael J Davis wrote:

> You needn't be concerned. Science is roughly about:-
> a) making (careful/measured) observations
> b) speculating upon the reasons/causes of those observations
> c) Formulating a rationale for those reasons/causes in the form of
> hypotheses
> d) predicting the further outcomes of those hypotheses beyond existing
> observations, and attempting to falsify the hypothesis.
> e) Setting up, where possible, conditions to test the limits of those
> hypotheses, and observing the results.
> e) Testing those results against the hypotheses, and so on, until
> f) Sufficient knowledge of the limits of those hypotheses can be
> summarised as a 'Law'
> Then repeating the whole process until further
> refinement/accuracy/precision can be obtained.

The catch is your point e). Take, for example, the Big Bang. Numerous
hypotheses are required, from inflation to virtual particles, none of
which are capable of experimental proof.

I'll agree that there are experimental results which appear to support
some of them (virtual particles, I think, is one), but to claim that
they can give rise to a universe is beyond our powers to experiment.
Thus the crucial step is lacking and the lack means that the Big Bang,
for all its scientific jargon, is not actually science.

> As Karl Popper said in order to be science any theory must be capable of
> being falsified. His philosophy of science said "we should aim to
> eliminate the false rather than establish the true".

Something can be falsifiable yet still not be science. My assurance to
my wife that I was not visiting a strip club last night may be capable
of falsification, but it still is not science.

[Michael J Davis]

Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> opined

>On 05/12/2017 15:49, Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>> You needn't be concerned. Science is roughly about:-
>> a) making (careful/measured) observations
>> b) speculating upon the reasons/causes of those observations
>> c) Formulating a rationale for those reasons/causes in the form of
>>hypotheses
>> d) predicting the further outcomes of those hypotheses beyond
>>existing observations, and attempting to falsify the hypothesis.
>> e) Setting up, where possible, conditions to test the limits of those
>>hypotheses, and observing the results.
>> e) Testing those results against the hypotheses, and so on, until
>> f) Sufficient knowledge of the limits of those hypotheses can be
>>summarised as a 'Law'
>> Then repeating the whole process until further
>>refinement/accuracy/precision can be obtained.
>
>The catch is your point e). Take, for example, the Big Bang. Numerous
>hypotheses are required, from inflation to virtual particles, none of
>which are capable of experimental proof.
>
>I'll agree that there are experimental results which appear to support
>some of them (virtual particles, I think, is one), but to claim that
>they can give rise to a universe is beyond our powers to experiment.

Eh? In what way do you think that 'science' (as opposed to some
'scientists') is "giving rise to a universe"?

>Thus the crucial step is lacking and the lack means that the Big Bang,
>for all its scientific jargon, is not actually science.

Science is a process - as I described above - the fact that one
hypothesis is given a short form to distinguish it from others, might be
defined as linguistics rather than 'science'.

Ken, I am both a scientist (both by training & also I studied the
philosophy of science with some very competent theologians) and a
Christian; it's only where you define what ** you think ** the Bible
says is contrary to what ** you think ** science says - that *you* have
a problem.

I thank God there are many eminent scientists who are committed
Christians.

>
>> As Karl Popper said in order to be science any theory must be capable
>>of being falsified. His philosophy of science said "we should aim to
>>eliminate the false rather than establish the true".
>
>Something can be falsifiable yet still not be science. My assurance to
>my wife that I was not visiting a strip club last night may be capable
>of falsification, but it still is not science.

That just demonstrates your inability to follow a simple logical
argument.

To demonstrate a flaw in the argument that "All crows are black"
producing a Black Swan doesn't cut the mustard - you need to produce a
white (or other coloured) crow.
So producing a non-scientific statement that *is* falsifiable, DOES NOT
undermine Popper's statement that scientific theories require to be
falsifiable.

You also need to explain why a God who created such wonders as we see in
mathematics and, indeed, in the structure of the elements (as best we
understand them). And you do believe that God created a universe that's
rich in maths, don't you? Or do you really believe that in 1 Kings 7:23
the Bible teaches us that Pi = 3!!! :-)

And no, *of course* the Bible isn't a scientific treatise, so why do you
base your misunderstanding of the Holy Word of God as though it were?

[Michael J Davis]

Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> opined

>On 01/12/2017 18:23, Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>> But of course creationists don't believe in antibiotic resistant
>>bacteria as they obviously can't mutate.
>
>Now you're being silly. In fact, resistant bacteria pretty well prove
>Creationism; drug-resistant MRSA is still MRSA, drug-resistant TB is
>still TB, and so on.

Yes, it was a joke... ;-(

>
>There was some hoo-ha last week or the week before about how a new
>species of Darwin's Finches had emerged in the Galapagos and, contra
>Dawkins, had done so in a couple of years instead of the millions of
>billions Dawkins says are essential.

It was interesting, certainly, as the Big Bird on Daphne Major appeared
to be a hybrid from two different species (from different islands) and
was apparently unable to breed with the species from which they wad
come. So they have been interbreeding (successfully)!

On the basis that they are not (cannot?) interbreed with their ancestral
groups, seems to suggest that they may be a 'new' species.

>However when you read the small print, it emerged that the birds were
>still finches, it was just that they came from a different island and
>sang a different song, so didn't interbreed with other finches. In my
>youth I had the same problem with a beautiful Italian girl I met in
>Bari; she didn't speak English, I didn't speak Italian, romance died.
>Proof positive that English and Italians are a different species.

Can't say - are your offspring interbreeding successfully?

>Remember, folk: you read it here first.

Indeed!!

[Kendall Down]

On 06/12/2017 17:23, Michael J Davis wrote:

> On the basis that they are not (cannot?) interbreed with their ancestral
> groups, seems to suggest that they may be a 'new' species.

The reason for not interbreeding (according to the report) was not some
physical obstacle but a difference in song. Hence my analogy with the
beautiful Italian girl I met.

> Can't say - are your offspring interbreeding successfully?

But that is the point - there were no offspring, due to the difference
in language. Therefore Italians and English are different species (by
the foolish reasoning above).

[Kendall Down]

On 06/12/2017 17:10, Michael J Davis wrote:

> Eh? In what way do you think that 'science' (as opposed to some
> 'scientists') is "giving rise to a universe"?

I doubt that either science or scientists have given rise to a universe
- but both claim to have established how the universe came into being.

> Ken, I am both a scientist (both by training & also I studied the
> philosophy of science with some very competent theologians) and a
> Christian; it's only where you define what ** you think ** the Bible
> says is contrary to what ** you think ** science says - that *you* have
> a problem.

While not claiming to be a scientist, and ardently rejecting the title
of theologian, I am fairly confident about my general understanding of both.

>> Something can be falsifiable yet still not be science. My assurance to
>> my wife that I was not visiting a strip club last night may be capable
>> of falsification, but it still is not science.

> So producing a non-scientific statement that *is* falsifiable, DOES NOT
> undermine Popper's statement that scientific theories require to be
> falsifiable.

Maybe; I was merely demonstrating that the aspect of falsifiability does
not make a statement scientific. (See my first sentence.)

> You also need to explain why a God who created such wonders as we see in
> mathematics and, indeed, in the structure of the elements (as best we
> understand them).

Perhaps you would care to complete your sentence?

> And you do believe that God created a universe that's
> rich in maths, don't you? Or do you really believe that in 1 Kings 7:23
> the Bible teaches us that Pi = 3!!! :-)

Mathematics is a powerful way of describing what we see and understand
about the universe - but then, I have seen quite serious forumlae
advanced which purported to explain everything from food preferences to
romance, so it is possible that although some things can be expressed in
maths, maths is not the cause or even the total explanation.

As for 1 Kings, I think I have before mentioned a sermon I heard some
years ago in which the preacher explained that the thickness of the
metal was 4" (a handsbreadth) and when the diameter was adjusted by that
amount the internal circumference came pretty close to PI.

A cubit is (approximately) 18". The diameter would therefore be 180".
Take away 8" (4" on each side) gives you 172"*PI=540.3569396" while the
claimed 10 cubits circumference would give you 540".

Why take the internal diameter? If you are calculating the volume of
water, for example; if you measuring the mould over which the bronze was
cast, is another example. Various reasons can be dreamed up, but the
closeness of the figures does imply that that preacher's thesis is
plausible.

> And no, *of course* the Bible isn't a scientific treatise, so why do you
> base your misunderstanding of the Holy Word of God as though it were?

The Bible is not a book of history, yet its historical statements are
remarkably accurate. I imagine the same is true about its scientific
statements - the more so as the theory about how the universe began is
not scientific![1]

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: You may object that there is a good deal of science involved in
calculating all the way back (almost) to the Big Bang - but if God had
created the universe a split second ago, with all the atoms in their
present positions and trajectories, scientst could draw just as
plausible and just as wrong conclusions as they might draw from gazing
at Adam's navel.[2]

Note 2: I have no special information on whether or not Adam had a
navel, but I am confident that every one of the trees in the Garden of
Eden had a) fruit and b) rings. Without fruit Adam would have starved.
Without rings the trees would have broken in the first breeze that came
along.

[Adam Funk]

That would mean that God set the universe up fraudulently just to wind
us up & cause trouble.


--
Morality is doing what's right regardless of what you're
told. Obedience is doing what you're told regardless of what is
right. (attributed to H. L. Mencken)

[Kendall Down]

On 08/12/2017 10:34, Adam Funk wrote:

>> Note 1: You may object that there is a good deal of science involved in
>> calculating all the way back (almost) to the Big Bang - but if God had
>> created the universe a split second ago, with all the atoms in their
>> present positions and trajectories, scientst could draw just as
>> plausible and just as wrong conclusions as they might draw from gazing
>> at Adam's navel.[2]

> That would mean that God set the universe up fraudulently just to wind
> us up & cause trouble.

No more so than He did by creating trees with rings. There are
structural reasons why trees had to be created with rings; for all I
know there are structural reasons why the universe had to be created
"just so".

The point is that had God done so, scientists wouldn't be able to detect it.

[Michael J Davis]

Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> opined

>On 08/12/2017 10:34, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>> Note 1: You may object that there is a good deal of science involved in
>>> calculating all the way back (almost) to the Big Bang - but if God had
>>> created the universe a split second ago, with all the atoms in their
>>> present positions and trajectories, scientst could draw just as
>>> plausible and just as wrong conclusions as they might draw from gazing
>>> at Adam's navel.[2]

>> That would mean that God set the universe up fraudulently just to wind
>> us up & cause trouble.
>
>No more so than He did by creating trees with rings.

ROTFL!!! I missed this earlier!

God deceives us by creating trees with rings!! LOL!!

>There are structural reasons why trees had to be created with rings;
>for all I know there are structural reasons why the universe had to be
>created "just so".

Indeed! So what's the problem in trying to find out? And what's wrong
with the explanations so far?

>
>The point is that had God done so, scientists wouldn't be able to detect it.

Eh? God HAS done so, so we can admire God's handiwork. Look up into the
night sky and see God's work. Now which psalm says that?

And more indeed, like Quantum mechanics...

Blessings

Mike

[chorl...@gmail.com]

I know it's only Wikipedia but Tallow:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallow

[Michael J Davis]

"chorl...@hotmail.com" <chorl...@gmail.com> opined

>I know it's only Wikipedia but Tallow:
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallow

Of course, no strict vegan would consider using soap!!

(I hadn't thought of that before!)

:-(

[Kendall Down]

On 26/12/2017 16:53, Michael J Davis wrote:

>> No more so than He did by creating trees with rings.

> ROTFL!!! I missed this earlier!
> God deceives us by creating trees with rings!! LOL!!

If you would get up from the floor and stop rolling around, you will see
the explanation I provided. God did not deceive anyone; we deceive
ourselves by thinking that rings are an infallible guide to age, without
realising that that is at best a secondary purpose.

>> There are structural reasons why trees had to be created with rings;
>> for all I know there are structural reasons why the universe had to be
>> created "just so".

> Indeed! So what's the problem in trying to find out? And what's wrong
> with the explanations so far?

There is nothing wrong with trying to find out - indeed, it is a very
laudable endeavouer. The problem comes when we think that we know all
the answers and because those answers contradict God's word, we, in our
folly, trust to human wisdom and dismiss God's word.

>> The point is that had God done so, scientists wouldn't be able to
>> detect it.

> Eh? God HAS done so, so we can admire God's handiwork. Look up into the
> night sky and see God's work. Now which psalm says that?

We can indeed admire God's handiwork, but let us suppose that that
handiwork involved creating a massive universe with rays of light
already in position between the most distant galaxy and us. How would we
detect that those rays of light were only a split second old instead of
thousands of millions of years?

I will allow you two postcards for your answer.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Kendall Down]

On 27/12/2017 17:03, chorl...@hotmail.com wrote:

> I know it's only Wikipedia but Tallow:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallow

And which part of the discussion does that bear upon?

However, from that article:
=========
In Leviticus 3:14-17 the Israelites are forbidden to eat the suet
surrounding certain internal organs of animals (e.g. cows and sheep)
sacrificed at the Temple. This suet is Halakhically called chelev.
English Bible translations sometimes translate chelev to "tallow",
although the original text only forbids tallow from species offered for
sacrifice; tallow from other (typically wild) kosher quadrupeds (e.g.
deer) is not forbidden.
=========

My understanding is that wild animals have very little fat - they burn
it all off running away from predators. (Or, in the case of predators,
chasing after prey.)

I am not aware that only sacrificial fat is forbidden; if so, then only
sacrificial blood would be forbidden, as both blood and fat are
forbidden in the same verse and the same phrase in that verse. I am not
aware that the mad Talmudists allowed the eating of blood from game.

[Kendall Down]

On 27/12/2017 18:55, Michael J Davis wrote:

> Of course, no strict vegan would consider using soap!!
> (I hadn't thought of that before!)

Yeah, we're a grubby lot.

Actually, I'm not a vegan, but we do use soaps with only vegetable fat.

[chorl...@gmail.com]

my strict vegan acquaintances wont eat honey, because it exploits the bees.

Hummmmmmm

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Kendall Down" wrote in message news:

Michael J Davis wrote:
>> Of course, no strict vegan would consider using soap!!
>> (I hadn't thought of that before!)

>Yeah, we're a grubby lot.
>Actually, I'm not a vegan, but we do use soaps with only vegetable fat.

So have you now stopped using the new bank notes, and just use cards and £1
coins?

Jeff...

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"chorl...@hotmail.com" wrote in message news:

>my strict vegan acquaintances wont eat honey, because it exploits the bees.
>Hummmmmmm

Well balanced strong-faith Christians can eat anything they wish [including
honey, bacon, all animal protein, fish, eggs, and may drink wines and beers]
and ALL with Almighty God's blessing.

"Be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God,
who giveth us richly all things to enjoy"
1 Tim 6:17 (KJV)

I often wonder why so many Veggies, etc, seem so miserable, grumpy and
unhappy with others who are not prepared to follow their neurotic foodie
ways.

"3 They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat meat, even
though God gave these things to *well-taught Christians* to *enjoy* and be
thankful for

4 For everything God made is good, and we may eat it gladly if we are
thankful for it,

5 and if we ask God to bless it, for it is made good by the Word of God and
prayer.

6 If you explain this to the others you will be *doing your duty as a worthy
pastor* who is fed by faith and by the true teaching you have followed."
1 Tim 4:3-6 (TLB)

Over to our 'worthy pastor' then?

Jeff...

[Kendall Down]

On 28/12/2017 17:32, chorl...@hotmail.com wrote:

> my strict vegan acquaintances wont eat honey, because it exploits the bees.
> Hummmmmmm

On the other hand, the beekeepers look after their bees, move them to
areas where pollen is plentiful, treat them for diseases and
infestations, and so on.

I am reminded of Gerald Durrell who was quite scathing about those who
had a gushingly romantic view of "nature" and "the wild" and told of how
one of these people had visited him to expound her views. It chanced
that some new animals had arrived, to he took her with him while he
treated their sores and wounds, removed the parasites, etc. The woman's
views were rather less strident after helping to cleanse an enormous
tropical ulcer.

[Timreason]

It illustrates why I accept that humans eat meat. We have the teeth and
digestive systems for that, and scripture does not say that we
shouldn't. That's the way the natural world works: Life feeds off of
life. Maybe one day in the (far?) future it won't be so, but the world
we have has 'nature red in tooth and claw'.

That's the way it is, we eat meat. Of course, it IS possible to avoid
eating meat and still get the necessary vitamins and nutrients, but it's
much easier to do so by eating meat. In many cultures, humans eat
insects, and maybe that would be preferable to eating more 'sentient'
beings such as pigs, sheep and cattle. But many species have survived
precisely because they are useful to humans for meat or other uses.
Maybe not so good for individuals, but for *species* a great survival
strategy is "Be Useful To Humans". That is, assuming the animals are
farmed, rather than hunted.

How do we know plants don't 'suffer' when we slice them up and boil them?

Tim.

[Kendall Down]

On 29/12/2017 17:22, Timreason wrote:

> It illustrates why I accept that humans eat meat.

I fail to see the connection, but never mind.

> We have the teeth and
> digestive systems for that, and scripture does not say that we
> shouldn't.

There are many things which Scripture doesn't say - it doesn't recommend
exercise, the avoidance of stress, five-a-day or much else. What it
*does* do is tell us that we have a responsibility to be as healthy as
possible and then leaves it up to us to apply our rational minds to
discover what that means in our individual circumstances.

> That's the way it is, we eat meat. Of course, it IS possible to avoid
> eating meat and still get the necessary vitamins and nutrients, but it's
> much easier to do so by eating meat.

I was not aware that questions of morality (or even of health) were
decided upon "ease".

> How do we know plants don't 'suffer' when we slice them up and boil them?

Curiously, the Eden diet consisted of fruits and nuts, so that if we
stuck to that (or were able to stick to it) we would be eating living
things instead of dead ones. As fruit naturally falls from the tree, I
presume - quite apart from God's decree - that it is not cruel and
unusual to eat it.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Kendall Down" wrote in message news

Timreason wrote:
>> It illustrates why I accept that humans eat meat.

>I fail to see the connection, but never mind.

>> We have the teeth and digestive systems for that, and scripture does not
>> say that we shouldn't.

>There are many things which Scripture doesn't say - it doesn't recommend
>exercise,

Better try.
“Physical training is good" Tim 4:8 (NLT)

>the avoidance of stress,

Physical training relieves the systems of stress to an enormous degree.
Try and see the wonders of it.

Endorphins flood the body giving an immense felling of 'Well being'.

Then Serotonin the 'Happiness Hormone' kicks in and one can have a
'natural' high for days after the regular physical exercise.

I can personally recommend spending at least 1 hour, twice a week down the
gym, the results are truly amazing, all of the above NATURAL benefits and
the added bonus of a wonderful increase in bodily strength all over,
especially in the legs, arms, back and stomach, also retaining bone
strength and avoiding muscle wasting, especially when one gets into their
60's and 70's.

Try it for a 3 months as a 'taster' and see the incredible difference both
in regaining a more youthful bodily shape, straightened shoulders and
internal core strength, and to boot, a healthy and calmed mental state.

Jeff...
Note:
Then finish it all off by the Daily Bible Readings for a complete 'detox'
from the evil and wicked world around us.
Job..............39.
Malachi........1.
Revelation..17-18.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Kendall Down" wrote in message news:

>Curiously, the Eden diet consisted of fruits and nuts, so that if we stuck
>to that (or were able to stick to it)

Erh! that is well past it's 'sell-by-date' Ken.

"1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of
you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the
heavens; With all wherewith the ground teemeth, and all the fishes of the
sea, into your hand are they delivered

. 3 *Every moving thing that liveth shall be food* for you; As the green
herb have I given you all."
Gen 9:1-3 (ASV)

See how God has now increased the food range to include "*Every moving
thing that liveth shall be food* As the green herb have I given you all."

>we would be eating living things instead of dead ones.

Well the Jews, Christ and the Apostles, ALL ate dead animals and dead fish,
and never worried about them being 'sentient' or bothering their
consciences over such insignificant trifles.

"27 And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon
the altar of Jehovah thy God; and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be
poured out upon the altar of Jehovah thy God; and thou shalt eat the flesh"
Deut 12:27 (ASV)

A command here then, folks?

"11 On that day they sacrificed to the Lord 700 cattle and 7,000 sheep and
goats from the plunder they had taken in the battle"
2 Chron 15:11 (NLT)

A bit of an overkill here then?

But it did also satisfy the Lord's enjoyment of the aroma of the roasting
flesh.

15 “Next Aaron and his sons must lay their hands on the head of one of the
rams.16 Then slaughter the ram, and splatter its blood against all sides of
the altar.17 Cut the ram into pieces, and wash off the internal organs and
the legs. Set them alongside the head and the other pieces of the body,18
then burn the entire animal on the altar. This is a burnt offering to the
Lord; it is a pleasing aroma, a special gift presented to the Lord."
Ex 29:15-18 (NLT)

>As fruit naturally falls from the tree, I presume - quite apart from God's
>decree - that it is not cruel and unusual to eat it.

Yet Christ caused the 'death' of large 153 fish when he ordered his
disciples to drop down their nets when they had failed to catch anything
during the night.

Yet neither were the Jews 'cruel' when they obeyed Almighty God and often
sacrificed hundreds of beasts to honour the Will of God and please Him with
the lovely aroma that comes from a roasting piece of flesh.

Neither was Christ 'cruel' when catching live fish for his disciples for
them to eat themselves or to feed to others.

Neither was he 'cruel' when telling Peter to "go and cast a HOOK" and
catch a fish which would have their tax money inside it.

Far, far, far. more essential, indeed commanded, is that fornicators and
adulterers are NEVER tolerated in the "Church of God".

But refraining from eating meats is insignificant and quite irrelevant, but
"Putting away wicked persons" is vital in keeping the 'leaven' of wickedness
from contaminating the whole church lump.

"6 What a terrible thing it is that you are boasting about your purity and
yet you let this sort of thing go on. Don’t you realize that if even one
person is allowed to go on sinning, soon all will be affected? 7 Remove this
evil cancer—this wicked person—from among you, so that you can stay pure"
1 Cor 5:6-7 (TLB)

Sadly it falls on deaf ears and closed eyes and minds, as the leavening
fruits of the churches of Christendom now show, day after day, continuously.


Jeff...

[Kendall Down]

On 29/12/2017 18:13, Kendall Down wrote:

Apropos of nothing but to keep it in the thread, there is a bit of a
hoo-ha going on at the moment just down the road in Telford, where a
cafe chef went on Facebook to record that she "spiked" a vegan's meal.
Not unnaturally this is being interpreted to mean that she included some
animal product in the person's meal.

In an attempt to repair the bad publicity, the cafe has hastily issued
the following information: a) the chef was drunk when she made the post
and therefore did not express herself accurately; b) what actually
happened was that, after the chef had spent all morning preparing a
vegan dish for this person, he or she then went and ordered a particular
pizza which is made with mozarella cheese and that the person was
responsible for his or her own "contamination".

In response I would say that I find both aspects of the explanation
credible. Far too many idiots feel that alcohol is an acceptable vice
and go public after imbibing to excess. We have even had a poster or two
on uk.r.c who have made foolish comments which they later attributed to
posting while under the influence.

Secondly, many people adopt the vegetarian or vegan label simply because
it is fashionable (the same reason is behind many allergies) and without
either intelligence or conviction. I saw something the other day about a
chap who took a "vegan" girl on a first date. She rejected his choice of
restaurant because its vegan menu wasn't adequate, then led him to a
more expensive restaurant, where she promptly ordered the fish dish.

The relationship did not progress beyond the first date!

Unfortunately, various trolls (vegan or otherwise) have issued death
threats against the chef. Such people need to grow up, get a life, but
even more, need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[Madhu]

Since this topic is still alive

* Kendall Down <p237kt$f7f$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:54:54 +0000:

> However, from that article:
> =========
> In Leviticus 3:14-17 the Israelites are forbidden to eat the suet
> surrounding certain internal organs of animals (e.g. cows and sheep)
> sacrificed at the Temple. This suet is Halakhically called
> chelev. English Bible translations sometimes translate chelev to
> "tallow", although the original text only forbids tallow from species
> offered for sacrifice; tallow from other (typically wild) kosher
> quadrupeds (e.g. deer) is not forbidden.
> =========
>

> only sacrificial blood would be forbidden, as both blood and fat are
> forbidden in the same verse and the same phrase in that verse. I am
> not aware that the mad Talmudists allowed the eating of blood from
> game.

No leeway there. both are explitily prohibited in Lev. 7:22-27

(Lev. 7:24) And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and
the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any
other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it.

If I understand correctly, there are two types of "forbidden":
1. is forbidden to eat something
2. it is forbidden to derive any benefit from something

There are obscure (to me) discussions in the talmud around the use of
the blood flowing out of the temple into the brook kidron, where it was
mingled and sold to farmers, [Yoma 58b, Pesachim 22a]

* * *

The sages (both here in the heavenly academy) were looking forward, to
the millennial luncheon, when they expect God will slaughter the
Leviathan and place it on their tables. (The tradition is there God
created two leviathans, a male and a female, and only killed the male,
preserving the other for the millennial feast.) One can distinctly see
them polishing their knives and forks in anticipation. Baba Bathra 74b

* * *

While you and me may hold our opinion that Adam and Eve were vegetarian,
there are proofs adduced that they were not:

"A [further] objection is raised: R. Judah b. Tema said: Adam
reclined in the Garden of Eden, whilst the ministering angels
roasted flesh and strained wine for him. Thereupon the serpent
looked in, saw his glory, and became envious of him? [This
proves that flesh was permitted to Adam.] The reference there is
to flesh that descended from heaven. But does flesh descend from
heaven? -- Yes; as in the story of R. Simeon b. Halafta, who was
walking on the road, when lions met him and roared at
him. Thereupon he quoted: The young lions roar after their
prey;[Psa.104:21] and two lumps of flesh descended [from
heaven]. They ate one and left the other. This he brought to
the schoolhouse and propounded: Is this clean [fit for food] or
not? -- They [sc. the scholars] answered: Nothing unclean
descends from heaven. R. Zera asked R. Abbahu: What if something
in the shape of an ass were to descend? -- He replied: Thou
howling yorod: did they not answer him that no unclean thing
descends from heaven?" -- Sanh. 59b

[Kendall Down]

On 04/01/2018 06:51, Madhu wrote:

> No leeway there. both are explitily prohibited in Lev. 7:22-27
> (Lev. 7:24) And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and
> the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any
> other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it.
> If I understand correctly, there are two types of "forbidden":
> 1. is forbidden to eat something
> 2. it is forbidden to derive any benefit from something

Is there a reading difficulty here? The verse specifically *allows* any
use of the fat - lighting, greasing bullock cart wheels, etc - and only
eating is banned.

> There are obscure (to me) discussions in the talmud around the use of
> the blood flowing out of the temple into the brook kidron, where it was
> mingled and sold to farmers, [Yoma 58b, Pesachim 22a]

The Talmud is basically aimed at getting the rabbis out of a hole caused
by the laws of God. Some rabbi digs a hole, his neighbour's animal falls
into the hole and is killed; God says he is liable, the Talmud comes up
with excuses that evade liability.

> The sages (both here in the heavenly academy) were looking forward, to
> the millennial luncheon, when they expect God will slaughter the
> Leviathan and place it on their tables. (The tradition is there God
> created two leviathans, a male and a female, and only killed the male,
> preserving the other for the millennial feast.) One can distinctly see
> them polishing their knives and forks in anticipation. Baba Bathra 74b

Indeed. I need hardly point out that the Bible is not the source for
such nonsense.

> While you and me may hold our opinion that Adam and Eve were vegetarian,
> there are proofs adduced that they were not:
> "A [further] objection is raised: R. Judah b. Tema said: Adam
> reclined in the Garden of Eden, whilst the ministering angels
> roasted flesh and strained wine for him. Thereupon the serpent
> looked in, saw his glory, and became envious of him? [This
> proves that flesh was permitted to Adam.]

The difference between Talmudic proof and certifiable insanity is
negligible.

[Madhu]

* Kendall Down <p2kok6$c67$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:28:59 +0000:

> On 04/01/2018 06:51, Madhu wrote:
>
>> No leeway there. both are explitily prohibited in Lev. 7:22-27
>> (Lev. 7:24) And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and
>> the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any
>> other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it.
>> If I understand correctly, there are two types of "forbidden":
>> 1. is forbidden to eat something
>> 2. it is forbidden to derive any benefit from something
>
> Is there a reading difficulty here? The verse specifically *allows*
> any use of the fat - lighting, greasing bullock cart wheels, etc - and
> only eating is banned.

I did have some difficulty in parsing the last sentence of your comment:

>>> I am not aware that only sacrificial fat is forbidden; if so, then

>>> only sacrificial blood would be forbidden, as both blood and fat are
>>> forbidden in the same verse and the same phrase in that verse. I am
>>> not aware that the mad Talmudists allowed the eating of blood from
>>> game.

Apparently the talmudists did allow eating of the fat of game and the
wiki text is correct. This is because there was no injunction against
it. The prohibition on blood was universal, but the Leviticus passages
on eating fat only talk of animals which are permitted for sacrifice.
So any decision on blood will not bear on a decision on fat.

Sacrificial fat HELEB has to be burnt on the altar and cannot be
consumed. Regarding animals that are permitted for sacrifice but which
have not been consecrated: these are termed HULLIN, and their fat is
explicitly forbidden for consumption (7:23). 7:24 permits the secular
use of the fat of HULLIN, and also permits the secular use of the fat of
animals which have NOT been slaughtered according to rules of Jewish
slaughter, (these carcases are termed NEBELAH), but the context still
only talks of ox sheep goat, the animals permitted for sacrifice. In
other words it does not talk of game.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

On Thursday, 4 January 2018 07:00:09 UTC, Madhu wrote:
> Since this topic is still alive

Madhu stated to Ken.

>While you and me may hold our opinion that Adam and Eve were vegetarian,
>there are proofs adduced that they were not:

Well, with which 'offering' did Almighty God prefer and was pleased with, was it Cain's 'veggies' or Abel's animal flesh and the fat?

"Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.

And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell."
Gen 4:3-5 (ASV)

We also see that Almighty God 'animal-flesh' supplemented Man-kinds diet AFTER the great flood as we read in the Bible Readings recently.

"3 Everything that lives and moves will be your food. I gave you green plants as food; I now give you everything else."
Gen 9:3 (GW)

Something serious Christian veggies, etc, ought to concur with and fully appreciate.

Jeff...

The excellent Bible Readings for Today.
Genesis.......9-10.
Psalms.......11-13.
Matthew......7.

[Madhu]

[from 4 years ago, sorry]

* Madhu <m3k1ycq...@leonis4.robolove.meer.net> :
Wrote on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:36:21 +0530:
>
> * Kendall Down <ov97kf$kdt$2...@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 13:42:43 +0000:
>
>>> That is usually not enough. You also have to be have been vegetarian
>>> in your previous birth. Especially if you were trying to achieve
>>> levitation. I can't locate it now, but I think P.G. Wodehouse
>>> explained this in one of his books.
>>
>> I think I've read all except, perhaps, one or two of Wodehouse's
>> earliest books and don't recall any such discussion.
>
> If I remember it was only a few sentences, most likely some drones
> member (or similar) commenting on a friend who was a vegetarian.
> Wodehouse frequently takes digs at vegetarianism in many of his books
> (I've only read a dozen or so, and not in recent years anyway.. I
> couldn't locate this particular passage in the tattered remains of the
> few books I still have)

I finally found it.

"`Sir'? said Jeeves, kind of manifesting himself. One of the rummy
things about Jeeves is that, unless you watch like a hawk, you very
seldom see him come into a room. He's like one of those weird birds
in India who dissolve themselves into thin air and nip through space
in a sort of disembodied way and assemble the parts again just where
they want them. I've got a cousin who's what they call a Theosophist,
and he says he's often nearly worked the thing himself, but couldn't
quite bring it off, probably owing to having fed in his boyhood on
the flesh of animals slain in anger and pie."

-- P.G.Wodehouse THE ARTISTIC CAREER OF CORKY (1916), in CARRY
ON JEEVES (1926)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Artistic_Career_of_Corky

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/12/2021 16:09, Madhu wrote:

> I've got a cousin who's what they call a Theosophist,
> and he says he's often nearly worked the thing himself, but couldn't
> quite bring it off, probably owing to having fed in his boyhood on
> the flesh of animals slain in anger and pie."
> -- P.G.Wodehouse THE ARTISTIC CAREER OF CORKY (1916), in CARRY
> ON JEEVES (1926)

Brilliant! My favourite author, just about. Er - you don't think
Wodehouse was being serious, do you?

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <spqmeb$k7g$2...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 20 Dec 2021 19:44:12 +0000:

I think Wodehouse is more enjoyable when you can believe he is being
serious. The literary "suspension of disbelief"

With Flashman G M Fraser gives Wodehouse a run for his money.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/12/2021 02:17, Madhu wrote:

> I think Wodehouse is more enjoyable when you can believe he is being
> serious. The literary "suspension of disbelief"

The inclusion of "pie" along with "the flesh of animals" is a good
indication that he is not subscribing to veganism as a means of
spiritual enlightenment.

> With Flashman G M Fraser gives Wodehouse a run for his money.

I admire Fraser for his depth of historical research and his imagination
in weaving it all together into a readable story, but Wodehouse was
unique for his use of language.